| Restrictions | OK |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | Employment Relations Authority - Wellington |
| Reference No | WA 120/06 |
| Hearing date | 5 Sep 2006 |
| Determination date | 07 September 2006 |
| Member | D Asher |
| Representation | T Taunt ; A Parsons (Respondent in person) |
| Location | Napier |
| Parties | Lawson v Parsons t/a Napier Contract Cleaning |
| Summary | UNJUSTIFIED DISMISSAL - Poor performance - Respondent claimed applicant dismissed for poor performance after multiple warnings - Applicant denied received complaints about performance or warned employment in jeopardy - Accepted received requests to undertake specific tasks - Authority satisfied applicant's version of events more credible - Given absence of job description and extent of cleaning expected of applicant, Authority did not accept requests supported claim of performance shortcomings - Respondent breached obligation to give proper warnings - Dismissal procedurally and substantively unjustified - Remedies - Insufficient evidence applicant effectively disabled by dismissal to extent unable to pursue further employment for over nine months - Comment on anticipated costs - Length of service 10 months - Cleaner |
| Result | Application granted ; Reimbursement of lost wages ($1,797.51)(3 months) ; Compensation for humiliation etc ($5,000) ; Costs reserved |
| Statutes | ERA s103A |
| Cases Cited | Trotter v Telecom [1993] 2 ERNZ 659 |
| Number of Pages | 7 |
| PDF File Link: | wa 120_06.pdf [pdf 25 KB] |